I was listening to a podcast on the Yarkshire Gamers Reet Big Wargames Podcast where George Nafziger was being interviewed. I found it a very interesting and entertaining episode. You can find it here.
One interesting point that George Nafziger made was about command and control in wargames. He was asked how he found wargamers replicate command structures and how that operates on the table. His response was as follows:
"I've been in some games where you've got to roll to see if your order gets there and if it doesn't get there then it doesn't move, and I think that is very inaccurate because there would have been initiative taken on the part of the local commander. So, nobody would ever be out of command. I think that's a made up problem by the game designer."
My immediate reaction was to consider that answer as quite controversial (well, as controversial as a rule mechanism can be considered!). Especially, as we are now so used to rules that include some form of command and control device whether it is initiative rolls to move units or brigades, command radius, or some form of card activation. All of which I am happy with. Indeed, my own home made rules tend to include some form of command and control mechanism. In fact, I would imagine that rules published nowadays would be criticised for lacking such a concept.
However, upon reflection I did wonder whether Mr Nafziger had a point. It is entirely feasible that in the absence of an order being sent by a general, the local commander - be it of a squad, platoon, battalion or regiment - would have to use their initiative in the face of the enemy and on the field of battle. This could include doing something or nothing. Maybe it is wrong to assume that the absence of an order equals inaction. Plus, it has been my observation over the decades of gaming that once you put two gamers on the same side, enough "friction" is created without the need to have rules that generate command and control friction. Perhaps, one should not always assume that if a player can move everything that they are destined to make the best decisions or have the necessary luck with dice or card to be successful. In this sense their "command" decisions may impact their "control" ability.
So, to what extent do you agree that command and control is a "made up problem by the game designer"?
An interesting point. I think there are probably two levels of command and control when you think about it, with one being the overall tactical picture with units operating as part of a larger plan and localised reactions to what is directly before them. I think most rules allow some form of localised reaction even when they are out of command or have failed their activation. The other argument against not including such a mechanism is that your troops would then always do pretty much what you wanted, which is probably equally as unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lawrence that this is an interesting topic. One in which I could spill a lot of ink, but I won't! I also agree that the answer is "it depends." What is the designer attempting to model in the rules? Does the model require or benefit from Command & Control rules? If yes, then it is not a made-up problem. Some designs and periods have a more pressing need for 2C than do others. Sometimes, written orders are needed. It really boils down to design decisions. While 2C is an important consideration in design and development, if the main purpose is to add friction into the decision process, players really do create their own friction. Random inputs (such as dice) tend to introduce friction as well and stymie the best laid plans regardless of carefully planned 2C.
Delete